10 Plastic & reconstructive studies in the library address this question.
“Flap harvest times averaged 52 and 68 min, respectively (P < 0.0001).”
Liu 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“The MRI analysis time was significantly lower with the DIVA system than with the slice-based visualization for residents, practitioners, and subsequently the entire group (P < .001).”
El Beheiry 2021 · Comparative study
“XR use decreased operative time, with AR reducing intraoperative perforator localization time from 20 min using handheld Doppler US to 2.3 min.”
Zijlstra 2026 · Systematic review
“Preoperative VR was associated with shorter operative times than conventional Doppler ultrasound (478±56.94 vs 606.29 ± 81.94 min, P<0.05).”
Lacey 2025 · Systematic review
Of 10 studies with a finding on this question: 8 report a positive finding, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
Study designs: 1 randomized trial, 1 comparative or prospective study, 4 reviews and 4 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Randomized trials: 1 trial on this question; 1 reported a positive finding.
Liu Y et al. · BMC Medicine · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“Flap harvest times averaged 52 and 68 min, respectively (P < 0.0001).”
P < 0.0001
El Beheiry M et al. · JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021
Plastic & reconstructive · Comparative study
“The MRI analysis time was significantly lower with the DIVA system than with the slice-based visualization for residents, practitioners, and subsequently the entire group (P < .001).”
P < .001
Zijlstra K et al. · JPRAS open · 2026
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“XR use decreased operative time, with AR reducing intraoperative perforator localization time from 20 min using handheld Doppler US to 2.3 min.”
2.3 min
Lacey H et al. · JPRAS open · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Preoperative VR was associated with shorter operative times than conventional Doppler ultrasound (478±56.94 vs 606.29 ± 81.94 min, P<0.05).”
P<0.05
Rasmussen KH et al. · JPRAS open · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Virtual reality demonstrated better visualization of patient-specific anatomy and was more time efficient than CT angiography.”
Vles MD et al. · Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery · 2020
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Harvesting time (p < 0.012) and operative time (p < 0.01) in DIEP-flap procedures and mandibular angle osteotomies, respectively, were significantly reduced if AR was used.”
p < 0.012
Obst M et al. · JMIR formative research · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study · n: 15 patients
“The process was time-efficient, with a total of under 8 minutes per case for data acquisition and model creation, and resource-efficient with surgeons reporting sufficient quality of smartphone-derived models.”
8 minutes
Timóteo R et al. · Healthcare technology letters · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“The average time taken to mark each perforator is 7.7 ± 6.5 s, with an average absolute error of 6.8 ± 2.6 mm and an estimated average deviation of 3.6 ± 1.4 mm.”
7.7 ± 6.5 s
Berger MF et al. · Digital health · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study
“The presented setup involved human interaction (no automation, no application programming interface used for data exchange among collaborators) in four different locations with a net workload of 173 min until clinical readiness on the AR system, and the evaluation considers therefore a pre-automation/implementation scenario.”
173 min
Amini S, Kersten-Oertel M · Healthcare technology letters · 2019
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“This method can be quicker than the traditional way and eliminates sizer implants from the process.”
All plastic & reconstructive studiesThis question across specialtiesBrowse the whole library
Summarises published research on VR/AR surgical planning across all platforms. Not product labelling. For Elucis indications see /elucis.
Intended for healthcare professionals.
Summaries and quotes describe each study's methods and the findings its authors report. They are not claims by Realize Medical and may contain errors: please read the original paper. Inclusion is not an endorsement of any product or use.